Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 30, 2016.

Now i am become death, destroyer of worlds[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 7#Now i am become death, destroyer of worlds

Miss Sunshine[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was move Miss Sunshine (song) over redirect. --BDD (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I expected this redirect to point at Little Miss Sunshine the children's book main character in (Mr. Men) not the unrelated Movie Little Miss Sunshine, but I also found at least one song [1] by R.I.O. called Miss Sunshine that was the cover track of one of their albums and charted in every German speaking country in Europe according to our article. Therefore this is an XY partial title match for two things and an exact title match to at least one song, and is therefore not helpful. Legacypac (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)}}[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Henry Ryecroft, The Private Papers of[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a directory-like search term that is unlikely to be typed. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I figured I'd find a goodly number of results for this, but Google gets just seventeen, and most of them are false positives such as Les Carnets d'Henry Ryecroft (The Private Papers of Henry Ryecroft. Nyttend (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this isn't even a proper {{R from sort name}}, because sorting occurs by surname, not by forename. If anything, it'd have to start with "Ryecroft." -- Tavix (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if no one is using this incorrect phrase on the internet it is no a plausable error redirect. Legacypac (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Tea tea[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted G7 at the request of the creator. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about the purpose of this redirect. "Tea tea" isn't mentioned in the article, and it's tagged as a page from an alternative language, even though "tea" is an English word. My searches for "tea tea" shows nothing to do with Masala chai, so this is WP:R#D5, nonsense. -- Tavix (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. "Teas'Tea" is a brand, "Tea tea" is nonsense.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, a learning moment! This is what I've heard called "contrastive reduplication", though you'll find it here at Contrastive focus reduplication. Used this way, you could logically talk of "tea tea" to contrast it with something that's called tea that doesn't derive from Camellia sinensis, such as herbal tea or rooibos. I think you certainly could make something like masala chai without proper tea leaves, but that's not the usual way you'd do it. If I had to guess, this was created as a snarky variant of the common phrase "chai tea", since "chai" itself simply means "tea". (As a side note, I also love the term "reduplication", because it seems like a linguistic joke. Duplicating something creates two—shouldn't reduplicating create three or four, depending on whether you duplicate the full product or just the original output?) All that said, I don't think this is a useful search term. --BDD (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created this redirect because I have seen the redirect target being described as "tea tea"; people may get confused, so it is a good idea to point them back to what it referred to. sst✈ (speak now) 06:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
High tea is a meal. We drink tea there too. Legacypac (talk) 06:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Christsakes[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete "Christsakes"; retarget Christ's sake to Christ's Sake. Deryck C. 22:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Not helpful to the reader. Legacypac (talk) 12:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

By goners[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like Neelix nonsense. Any better ideas or just delete them all? Neelix work so they can be G6 by any Admin.Legacypac (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Dearling[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 8#Dearling

Kitchen tea[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete both. Deryck C. 22:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems excessively vague and is not mentioned at target. Legacypac (talk) 10:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Mother Teresa the Saint[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was refine to Mother Teresa#Sainthood. Deryck C. 22:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She is not a Saint (yet) and even if she was, this redirect will not assist the reader in finding the target. We don't add "the Saint" to other saints. Neelix invention Legacypac (talk) 08:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep she was described as a living saint when she was alive, so seems viable -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Were she a saint she would be called Saint somebody (presumable Saint Teresa of somewhere), not this. A Gsearch reveals no use of this phrase (without any intervening punctuation). She's already in the "See Also" at the DAB page Saint Teresa. Si Trew (talk) 05:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If she were already canonized, this would be unambiguous (because "Mother" is present), not harmful, and not incorrect, so I would be at a "Weak Keep". It has been announced she will be sainted, it is notable and almost certain to take place, so this isn't a WP:NOTCRYSTAL violation. Though information is given in the lead, Refine to Mother Teresa#Sainthood would be appropriate, as not to give the impression the subject is currently a saint.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 19:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Godsy said. Which means keep though not as is, by the way. Rossami (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the church has already declared she will be canonized, they just haven't set a date. That makes the fact of her sainthood essentially current. I imagine she will likely be known as Saint Theresa of Calcutta (or similar) rather than this title, but this is unambiguous and close enough. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Paltry[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete all. The consensus is that "paltry" means "trivial", which is not synonymous to "trivia". Deryck C. 22:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are related terms but not the same. They are related to trivial, not trivia. Legacypac (talk) 08:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The fiftieth day[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 8#The fiftieth day

Gentleman-farmers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget. (Note:"Gentlemanfarmers" could plausibly be closed as no consensus but the end result is the same.) Rossami (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No help for the searcher at the target. Last three of these constructions are wrong too. Delete this Neelix nonsense? Legacypac (talk) 06:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse redirection of Gentleman farmers but think we should delete the error ones. Legacypac (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's no error in any of the four. Nyttend (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gentelmanfarmers is not a word. Si Trew (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

White-man[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. I apologize for the irregularity here; this had also been added to the nomination at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 29#White-guy, where there was consensus to delete. But there's consensus to keep here. Make of that what you will, but I'm re-closing this one as keep, with no prejudice against speedy renomination given the mix-up. But as often, think twice before renominating. --BDD (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This one got lost on the RfD page. More Neelix nonsense shoving English words together with dashes Legacypac (talk) 06:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Salut!-mobile[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 10:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another Aldi brand (see discussion for Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_29#Willow Woods which is not mentioned at the target; WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Si Trew (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. possibly speedy delete as promotional G11 . DGG ( talk ) 19:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not at target so confusing. Better to give the reader nothing and let them search Google. Legacypac (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Unsinkable[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This used to be directed at RMS Titanic, which was rather famously described as such (of course, before it sank); it was later blanked by User:EEng as "absurd" and redirected to the current target by User:Malcolmxl5. I think that redirecting from a phrase commonly used (however incorrectly) about ships to a relatively obscure military concept about islands is rather confusing, and is very likely not what the very small amount of people viewing it are looking for. As its only incoming link is an old DYK nom, I think it can be safely deleted. ansh666 04:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You sure won't hear any complaint from me. EEng 05:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Reductively[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 6#Reductively

Pre-figurative[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete all. JohnCD (talk) 10:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of these terms mean what the target DAB is pointing to, even though they are different forms of the same root word. Legacypac (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Prefigurational[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 10:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very rare word dreamed up by Neelix (top google result is a dictionary that does not define it). Makes a poor redirect to a two item DAB that does not define it. Legacypac (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete per WP:RFD#D5 nonsense (I've marked as {{R from adjective}}). No internal links, but if it is to go anywhere, the DAB seems a reasonable target. Si Trew (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Wiktionary doesn't have this formation, so I'm strengthening my delete per WP:NEOLOGISM. Si Trew (talk) 05:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_30&oldid=1078530274"